Probably the main reaction
that most Catholics have to the subject of Catholic social teaching is
indifference or even, in some cases, hostility. Is it not, some would say, just
some sort of left-wing scheme dreamed up in the aftermath of Vatican II, or maybe
something manufactured out of the wooly brains of Europeans clerics? Or if not
this, then it is equated with works of charity, such as helping out at a soup
kitchen or giving clothes to the homeless. But while these works of charity are
important, indeed essential, they are not the main focus of Catholic social
teaching. In order, then, to understand this subject we should begin with some
examination of the phrase itself, for from that we can learn much about its
contents.

But let us look primarily at
the second word of the phrase, social. This, I
think, is where most resistance to the idea resides. Many Catholics, in their
laudable efforts to obey God’s law and follow the teachings of the Church,
concentrate primarily on those commandments (especially the sixth and the
ninth) that concern personal morality. Nor do I deny the necessity of keeping
these two commandments if we hope to reach Heaven. But there is more. For
Catholic teaching since New Testament times has considered that the redemptive
message of Jesus Christ comes not just to individuals, but to groups as such,
that is, to men divided into the many kinds of social groupings which human
nature tends to create, including the state or civil society. Although a
Catholic can live a good Catholic life in a pagan society, not only is it
easier for him if the society around him is Catholic, but that society ought to
be Catholic. It is not right that we restrict the saving work of our Lord and
his Church only to individuals. That is part of the heresy of Martin Luther,
who was willing to consign society and the state to the Devil and make
Christianity primarily a private matter.

But the Catholic Church has
never agreed to this. In his encyclical on the Kingship of Jesus Christ, Quas Primas (1925), Pope Pius XI stated,

NOR IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THIS MATTER [OF THE
KINGSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST] BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE FAMILY OR THE STATE;
FOR ALL MEN, WHETHER COLLECTIVELY OR INDIVIDUALLY, ARE UNDER THE DOMINION OF
CHRIST. IN HIM IS THE SALVATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN HIM IS THE SALVATION OF
SOCIETY.1

If this is so, then the very
laws and institutions of society should not only give honor to Christ, but
these laws and institutions should reflect his justice. Nor can we suppose that
somehow since the Second Vatican Council the Church has abandoned this age-old
Catholic teaching, for the Council itself taught that it is part of the mission
of the laity “to impress the divine law on the affairs of the earthly city”.2

---

Fundamentally, as we saw
above in Quas Primas, men organized into groups, including into
political communities, are as much bound to obey the law of God as are
individual persons. Thus a state is bound to construct its laws in such a way
as to promote justice. And even a business firm or a corporation, although its
primary mission is not one of promoting social justice, cannot violate justice
in its operations or dealings. Since businesses are made up of human beings,
and human beings are bound to obey the law of God in all their acts, the mere
fact that men have combined into groups to produce some product or service
hardly exempts them from obeying his laws. With that in mind, let us look at
how Catholic social teaching deals with some of the concrete points of ethics
as they relate to economics.

The question of wage justice
was one of the first topics taken up by the Popes with the renewal of Catholic
social doctrine that began in 1891 with the encyclical Rerum Novarum. At the time of Rerum Novarum it was widely held that if an
employee accepted the wage offered by the employer, then that wage contract was ipso factojust, for had not a free agreement been made
on both sides? Pope Leo’s answer, and indeed the answer of every subsequent pope,
has been no, such an agreement is not necessarily just. And the fallacy of
those who hold that agreement between employer and employee always produces
justice arises from the fact that it rests upon an individualistic way of
looking on man and society.

---

We must begin, then, to see
the economic order as neither a machine whose output is determined according to
exact quasi-mechanical laws nor as a field for dog-eat-dog competition.
Instead, like all human activities, economic activity leaves considerable room
for alteration according to man’s free will and, as we will see later,
according to the laws, customs and institutions which mankind has established.
If society is capable of producing enough food, shelter and other essentials so
that no one need starve, then there is no reason for anyone to receive less
than a living wage, provided of course that he is willing to work.

Let us look at another
matter related to economics, property rights. Here the Church teaches that
society acting through the state has the right to set limits and bounds to the
use of property.

WHEN CIVIL AUTHORITY ADJUSTS OWNERSHIP TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF THE PUBLIC GOOD IT ACTS NOT AS AN ENEMY, BUT AS THE FRIEND OF PRIVATE
OWNERS; FOR THUS IT EFFECTIVELY PREVENTS THE POSSESSION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY,
INTENDED BY NATURE’S AUTHOR IN HIS WISDOM FOR THE SUSTAINING OF HUMAN LIFE,
FROM CREATING INTOLERABLE BURDENS AND SO RUSHING TO ITS OWN DESTRUCTION.7

In other words, it is the common good, the good of the whole of society, which
must be the final rule in economic matters. Although individuals do have
rights, very often these rights are not absolute, and must yield to the
creation of a society which is focused more on gaining Heaven than on gaining
more earthly goods. Men should hope and work for the goods necessary for their
and their families’ sustenance; but beyond that a preoccupation with earthly
gain is likely to come under the condemnation uttered by St. Paul when he
wrote, “if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those
who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless
and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of
money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have
wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.”8

----

Unfortunately many people
imagine that economic activity is in a separate world. Yes, they might say, we
must keep God’s commandments. That is the realm of religion and morality. But
the economic order is different. It has its own laws. It is more or less autonomous.
Any talk of reigning in man’s economic appetites smacks of socialism.

But neither Sacred Scripture
nor the Catholic Church views the matter in such a fashion. Socialism was an
attempt to control economic activity for what were basically materialist goals,
more production, which would supposedly bring about a better life for all.
Socialism failed on many levels. But from the fact that socialism was and is
wrong, it does not follow that the only practical alternative is a market
economy that is devoid of ethical concerns, in which the economic motive is
allowed nearly unlimited freedom.

In my experience, one of the
factors that incline some people to belittle Catholic social teaching is that
they think the science of economics teaches conclusions that are at variance
with the teaching of the Church. Many who have some formal or informal
knowledge of economics make the claim that since economic science gives us a
picture of how an economy works, in which there is hardly any room for moral
norms, that the popes were well-meaning but misguided, and either exceeded
their authority or at least did not teach with anything approaching
infallibility.

But the answer to that is
twofold. On the one hand, the Church has been teaching about morality in
relation to economics since the time of our Lord, and certainly the Popes felt
no hesitation about making pronouncements in this area which they surely
regarded as authoritative.

---

But fortunately our hope for
understanding how the Church’s social thought may be reconciled with economics
is not very difficult.

For the position of those
economists who erect a conflict here is like that of some philosophers who
claim that their subject renders impossible the Church’s dogma that the
existence of God can be demonstrated by reason or that human beings possess a
purely spiritual soul which survives death. For although a Kantian or a logical
positivist philosopher might say this, we know that there are many schools of
philosophy and that a Thomist, whose claim to be a philosopher is as good as
any others, would be able to show by reason that the upholders of these other
schools are simply wrong. Thus the Church’s doctrines do not contradict philosophy,
but only certain schools of philosophy. So with economics. There is no one
single teaching of economics. There are many schools of economists, and it is a
mistake to identify the teachings or conclusions of just one or two economic
schools with any certain conclusions of a science. Both the dominant
neoclassical or “orthodox” school and the Austrian school, whose practitioners
often regard ideas such as the just wage as merely an effort by do-gooders to
impose their notions on an impersonal economic system, are simply in the
position of the Kantian or logical positivist philosopher as regards Catholic
teaching. They may regard Catholic doctrine as disproven by their studies, but
we know that they cannot claim to be the only voice of philosophy. So with
economists.

Although the Church will
never explicitly identify one school of economic science as the only true one,
such groups of economists as the American Institutionalist school or the German
Historical school left ample room in their understanding of how an economy
works for the ethical concerns of Catholic social teaching.

The Institutionalists, for
example, argued that neither the “orthodox” neoclassicals nor the Austrians
really understand how an economy in the real world functions. Neoclassical
economists, for example, are too wedded to their graphs and equations, and do
not understand that in addition to market forces there are other factors which
influence economic arrangements and relations. These include institutions,
including the legal system, custom, and simply raw power. When a company, for
example, intimidates its employees to prevent them from organizing a union,
this is nothing except the more powerful working upon the less powerful. And
similarly, if a government agency or some other entity intervenes in such a
case to curb the power of management, this again is an example of another power
being exercised to allow justice to operate. Or when corporate CEOs appoint
friends and colleagues to their boards, knowing that they will in turn approve
inordinate salaries and benefits for these CEOs, this is hardly an example of
market forces in action, but simply of power, power often working behind the
scenes. The outcome in all these cases might be economic in the sense that it
is concerned with money or other economic goods, but it is not the forces of
supply and demand that are at work, but the power of management or of unions or
government. Or when limited liability laws protect corporate stockholders from
any adverse effects of their corporation’s conduct, does not such a law
influence how a corporation will act? If the stockholders were liable to the
extent of their investment for corporate misdeeds, would not this go a long way
to change corporate behavior and to make the shareholders watch more carefully
over the activities of the entity of which they are legally the owners? Yet
such corporate limited liability laws can be changed, and in fact originated
only in the nineteenth century. They are not examples of the so-called “laws of
economics,” written into the very nature of things. I do not deny the existence
of economic laws; they are real. But they are only part of the explanation of
economic behavior, and moreover, generally express themselves via differing
legal systems, customs and other institutions. Therefore there is no conflict
between economic science and Catholic social teaching, but at most a conflict
between Catholic social teaching and certain schools or sects of economists,
even if these schools happen today to be dominant in American academia. The
same can be said for psychology or sociology, where the schools dominant in
America academia are likewise hostile to Catholic teaching in many areas.

---

This world is not our final
home and the things of this world will not last forever. Therefore we must not
use them so that we end up losing our eternal salvation. An economy must serve
man’s life, and primarily those aspects of his life which are the most
important. Thus economic arrangements that seem to function more by fueling
man’s greed than by pointing him toward virtue are suspect. Catholic social
teaching is nothing but a recognition that all of man’s life must be lived
under God, and that like individuals, institutions will either help man to
achieve salvation or hinder him. And if this is so, then we will be wise if we
put all our affairs, even those dealing with our livings and external goods,
under God’s law, “for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under
the dominion of Christ. In Him is the salvation of the individual, in Him is
the salvation of society.”

Frases que Gosto

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person − every person − needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ - Papa Bento XVI (Caritas Est)

The righ wing anarchy of individualism and the free market will lead to a bully-ocracy of wage slavery. The left wing anarchy of the "right" to choose one's sexual identity will lead to a bully-ocracy where tolerance is not enough, and those who don't approve will be jailed. What will both anarchies try to destroy? The family - Kevin O´Brien (Gilbert Magaz. fev 2011)

When central authority abdicates, the vacuum is filled not by groups of hippies living in harmony and following-their-bliss, and not by Austrian economists celebrating the free market and following-their-greed, but by thugs, by terror - Kevin O'Brien (Gilber Magaz. )

There is less difference than many suppose between the ideal Socialist system, in which the big business is run by the the State, and the present Capitalist systema, in which the State is run by the big business - Chesterton

The poor object to being governed badly. The rich object to being governed at all. - Chesterton

"We should not say improbable things, or things we do not know. We must see their real, and not their imagined lives." - Santa Teresa de Lisieux sobre a vida dos santos